No progress made in negotiations between Wissahickon School Board, union

WISSAHICKON — It appears time doesn’t necessarily always heal all wounds, as the ongoing contract dispute between the Wissahickon School Board and the Wissahickon Education Alliance (Support) union continues.

The WEA-S — whose members include secretaries, classroom aides, bus drivers, custodians, maintenance personnel, lunch assistants, technical assistants, grounds personnel, security personnel and nursing assistants — originally announced a strike set for Oct. 29 after the board rejected a final plea to reconsider a third-party fact-finding report regarding terms for a new contract. The two sides then agreed to come back to the table and the WEA-S canceled the strike for a 45-day “cooling off period,” which allowed for further discussions. They then agreed to meet Nov. 29 in a state-mandated negotiation session to continue talks.

The session ended on a “discouraging note,” according to a district-issued press release, which includes comments made by the board’s chief negotiator, Jeffrey Sultanik.

The two sides met separately with two state mediators, who bounced back and forth between the two rooms trying to reach an agreement.

Advertisement

According to the district, the WEA-S reissued its original proposal that includes 4 percent salary increases that it made in March, despite later agreeing to the fact-finder’s 2.5 percent salary increase recommendation. The union, however, denied it reissued the proposal at the negotiation session.

“It had been our hope that the sharing of these figures would demonstrate how expensive the WEA contract is and it clearly shows them that compromise is needed on their end to prevent the exploration of other options,” Sultanik said. “The numbers are particularly problematic because the union moved from the fact-finder’s recommendation of 2.5 percent per year increases to their original proposal of 4 percent per year. We remain hopeful that the association will rethink its negotiation position and recognize that they are going down a path that could possibly be putting the job security of its employees at risk by maintaining its positions.”

Sultanik added the union’s reissue of the proposed 4 percent salary increase was grounds for the district filing of a charge of unfair labor practices.

The school board submitted a document showing the savings to the district if it outsourced two types of teaching aide positions — classroom aides and child-specific aides.

According to district figures, the district would save $1.1 million per year by outsourcing these positions because it would eliminate health benefits, retirement benefits and other employment related costs. The district also submitted a document that showed how it could save $382,608 in salaries and benefits per year by outsourcing bus driving services.

During its Oct. 22 meeting, the school board passed a resolution to solicit proposals to subcontract vendors for many of the positions currently held by members of the WEA-S.

Sultanik said other school districts are evaluating outsourcing options and Wissahickon should do the same in order to remain fiscally responsible.

“By our calculations, the union members who serve as child-specific assistants and special education assistants would need to come up with approximately $16,000 per member in concessions to convince us that outsourcing is not a financially sound option for the district,” he said.

In an email issued to the membership of the WEA-S, WEA Co-Presidents Ann Marie McDowell and Joann Groark refuted many of the district’s claims and made clear their disappointment with the board.

The two wrote they were surprised to learn not a single member of the board was present for the meeting, adding the mediators were “shocked” by that fact was well. Additionally, they said the district’s press release was “full of nonsense.”

They didn’t submit a proposal, they said, adding they only met privately with mediators. They said reissuing the March proposal is technically the most recent proposal they gave the board, given that the board rejected the fact-finding report in June and again in October. Because of this, when the two sides do resume bargaining, the March proposal will have to be the point where they begin.

“Our ‘costly’ proposal would cost the average household about $12 each year,” they said. “That money is already in the budget. In fact, the cost of our raises is only about $335,000 per year.”

Sultanik in response rejected that notion and said the union was “bargaining in bad faith.” He used the analogy of selling a house for $250,000 then lowering the price to $200,000, then returning it to the original price because no one was willing to buy it at the lowered price. He said the union membership voted to lower the asking percentage for salary increase and hasn’t had another vote since.

He further said there aren’t many unions in the country that are asking for a 4 percent increase “particularly with very rich health care” benefits.

As far as the district scenario of outsourcing positions, McDowell and Groark called the claim “scare tactics.” They said the board was essentially showing how it had found a number of people who were willing to take a pay cut, little to no benefits or a pension to do these jobs.

“That’s all we have — no names were given. In short, it’s part of the board’s scare tactic. Scare the pants off everyone and then start bargaining,” they wrote.

They then questioned who would want to take a position with so few incentives.

“The real question, whether anyone would actually take the job … is not answered,” they said. “Where exactly does the district think it could find 70 people would stick with our special education children for more than a week where the hourly rate is slashed, the job does not offer sick leave, health insurance or a pension? Time for a reality check!”

Furthermore, the union representatives said Sultanik’s point about fiscal responsibility should not be the only concern for the board.

“What about the school board’s duty of care owed to the students? To its employees?” they wrote.

They finally denied Sultanik’s assertion that reverting back to the March proposal would be considered grounds for unfair labor practices.

Despite the lack of an agreement in sight, talks are scheduled to resume Thursday, Dec. 6.